The state should be purely passed through function inputs and outputs

Nothing wrong with classes in functional programming though. Just return a new instance of the class from your method, rather than mutating an existing instance.
- Right, I think the two aren't as different as they appear. You can think of a closure as an object with just one method.
  If OO programming is fundamentally about objects sending messages to each other, then there are many ways to approach that. Some of those ways are totally compatible with functional programming.
  The legacy of C++ has dominated what OOP is "supposed" to be, but it doesn't have to work like that.
- Javascript:
  I heard you like mutating class data so I'm mutating the data you can put in your class data, dawg.
  
  JavaScript: a language for mutants.
  
  To be fair to JavaScript (I feel gross just saying that), it does have the ability to do some more functional-like programming as well. For example, many of its more recent array methods like filter, map, and reduce are pure functions.
- Classes are just another way to define an object. Heck even Lisp has objects!

Do anarchists think anarchy will result in a system with no classes?
- Yes, because anarchism is against all hierarchies and the class system is a form of hierarchy. Instead, decisions should me made collectively, for example in councils open for everyone
  
  @lugal @danc4498 Anarchism is against specifically unjust hierarchies, it can permit certain ones to exist within individual communities should the community find it justified, but still strongly favours not having any where possible.
  There are a group of anarchists who would still believe in the idea of an adult child hierarchy as they struggle to imagine an alternative world without it.
  
  Isn't anarchy just against imposed hierarchy? Most anarchists I've met are okay with heirarchies that form naturally, and believe those hierarchies to be enough for society to function, hence why they call themselves anarchists, not minarchists.
  
  So, do the anarchists not think that capitalism will just prevail and bring along with it the classes of the haves and have nots? Anarchy won’t solve the problem of wealth inequality, will it? I have genuinely never understood this aspect of anarchism.
  
  There is a huge difference between how things should work and how they will though. Without any system of enforcement, I would call it nothing but wishful thinking.
  In fairness, democracy was a kind of wishful thinking too, which is why I would propose a new form of monarchy instead: https://arendjr.nl/blog/2025/02/new-monarchy/
  
  How would you reach consensus between hundreds of millions of people?
  Look, I am sympathetic to the cause behind anarchism but it doesn’t work because it insists on ignoring biological realities. We need to look no further than our ape cousins to see how some hierarchical structure is inherent to our society. Only through the existence of a state can we reduce hierarchy and increase equality.
  A stateless society wouldn’t last 10 minutes before establishing a state.
- Depends on the anarchist. Many would focus on seeking the absence of involuntary power hierarchies. A manager who distributes work and does performance evaluations isn't intrinsically a problem, it's when people doing the work can't say "no, they're a terrible manager and they're gone", or you can't walk away from the job without risking your well-being.
  Anarchists and communists/socialists have a lot of overlap. There's also overlap with libertarians, except libertarians often focus on coercion from the government and don't give much regard to economic coercion. An anarchist will often not see much difference between "do this or I hit you" and "do this or starve": they both are coercive power hierarchies.
  Some anarchists are more focused on removing sources of coercion. Others are more focused on creating relief from it. The "tear it down" crowd are more visible, but you see anarchists in the mutual aid and community organization crowds as well.
- Anarchists recognize class as a social construct rather than a biological imperative or a free market condition. As a result, they will often make a point of transgressing or undermining the pageantry that class-centric organizations cling to.
  Its not that they think "no classes" will be a result so much as they think "explicitly defying class" is a political act.
- Anarchy means "without hierarchy". Classes are a hierarchy, so by definition it wouldn't be anarchy if you don't dissolve class.
  
  Classes, as per Marx, are foremost identified by the economical position of people, and not necessary a hierarchy as such, that's a secondary effect of how classes happen to work towards their own self-interest. If, in an anarchist utopia, one population freely chooses to live in a high-tech skyscraper doing engineering work, and another neighbouring one grows coffee in the rain forest, then their economical position is vastly different and they have different interests, thus they are different classes, but that doesn't mean that they need to be nasty to another.
  Most importantly though this is all just arguing semantics and Marx didn't get anarchism anyway, mixing the theoretical bodies is usually more headache than it's worth.
- Anarchism is not the thing you're told about in the media. It isn't a total lack of all government. It's a removal of hierarchical systems and exploitation. There still needs to be systems to protect people from these. They'd just be done through concensus.
  This page has more information if you want to learn. https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionA.html#seca1
- Oh boy…
- It's actually right in the name. Anarchy from an-arkhos means "without ruler". They think hierarchies are illegitimate per se.

Revolution is a monad

- This one does not spark joy.

wow, there are some really steaming takes on anarchism in the comments here.
- Real State of Exception Hours

Protest anonymously, function anonymously.

Dunno how accurate this is but if you like doing those quizzes see where you fall on leftist values. https://leftvalues.github.io/index.html
- Marxism-Leninism: 0%
  Phew. Demsoc followed by market anarchist I'll take it. It's not like I'd actually know what proper anarchism will look like so how am I supposed to get it as a result.
- I got Centrist Marxist, which is pretty much right.

Declare your intentions!

@Instantnudel@feddit.org 🚩🏴🚩🏴🚩🏴
- Ich freue mich über ihre Frage. Ich fühle mich geehrt hier zu sein. Ich möchte ihnen jetzt garkein vorwurf machen aber sie haben diese Frage doch auswendig gelernt. Sie haben unser Programm nichtmal gelesen. Würden sie Habeck auch so eine Frage stellen? Jetzt unterbrechen sie mich nicht!

Depends on how pure you want it to be, without any side effects

That's just a communist thing, not an anarchist-specific thing...
- Just like functional programing is about making state explicit, not making it go away.
  Overall, both arms are wrong... so they cancel out or something like that.
- Hm, i dont think AES amanaged to come close to this.
  Anarchists like Baba Makhno came close, but given the circumstance, leader- or classless societies are kinda doomed to fail.
  
  I'm not talking about "AES", I'm talking about communism. By the definition of "communism = AES" then communism doesn't abolish class, private property, the value-form, nations, etc.
  Anarchism distinguishes itself from communism principally by an inherent opposition to hierarchy, and an opposition to many of the organisational forms that communists may advocate for or participate in, eg communist parties, councils, and any kind of structure that could constitute a hierarchy. And anarchists are inherently opposed to centralisation, and so on.

You might want to cache things, like handles to resources or other dependencies?

I use states, but no classes. G'MIC is my main language. I do appreciate the functional way of thinking after writing in it for so long. States are just variables that defines the mode of something, right?

Settle down, elon